ERP differences in visual attention processing between attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder and control boys in the absence of performance differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded during a visual two-choice reaction time (RT) task in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and control boys selected using strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. No group differences were found in mean RT and correct responses. Although early occipital ERPs were not affected in the ADHD group, the peak latency of early anterior ERPs (N1, P1, N2) was significantly delayed. ADHD showed a larger effect of stimulus type on the frontal negativity (N530) and the posterior late negativity (nSW) and a smaller effect of stimulus type on anterior N2 and posterior P3b amplitude. The development of N530 and P450 amplitude across blocks of five trials was analyzed using orthogonal polynomial trend analysis of variance software. In the control group, P450 amplitude to "frequent" stimuli reduced across blocks. In the ADHD group, N530 amplitude increased for "rare" stimuli across blocks. It is suggested that the ADHD group showed a lack of automatization of the categorization process with increasing time on task for which they compensated by controlled attentional processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".